NFL Europe was not the NFL. Part of the reasoning behind the league's push to have a team in London was global outreach, but part of the thinking is that fans wanted the real thing, not the watered down minor leagues.

I don't necessarily agree, but that's what they're saying.

What conference do you put them in, though? What division? I like the league's current format with a nice, even 32 teams in 8 divisions. I say keep it that way and only consider moving a team.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who feels this way. How can the "National Football League" continue to call itself that with a team in London...or Mexico City? This is our game...for our fans. Let the Euro's have their soccer. The upcoming Pats' game in London against Tampa Bay is charged as a Tampa "home" game. But suppose it was the other other way around...and it was scheduled as a Patriots' "home" game. How would season ticket holders feel about that? Wouldn't they demand a discount due to the one less game? Is it fair to that NFL team that they have one less home game? How 'bout the obvious travel problems, should London get a team? The London Fog, or whatever they choose to call themselves, would have a brutal travel schedule, even if all their road games were played on the East Coast. What division would they end up in? Likely the AFC East...with Miami perhaps moving to the AFC South (to make travel less burdensome on London and Miami franchises). What about the draft? Players selected by London would basically be forced to move from the US to England...or maintain two homes. Are there any potential constitutional issues there? What player would want to play for London? How many NFL fans would be thrilled at the prospect of the SB being played in England? If Europe wants football...let them start the EFL (European Football League). Yes...theres' money to be made in Europe. But overexpansion has damaged both the NBA and NHL. Is it worth it for the NFL to risk alienating longtime fans to chase a buck? If American fans due to overexpansion start to develop an "I could care less" attitude, the NFL will lose far more than it gains by entering the European market. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/23/london-hopes-for-four-games-per-year-by-2012/ Thoughts?Posted by TexasPat3

What's it matter, some American cities aren't filling up their stadiums. The writing is on the wall. In ten years there will be a team in London, Toronto, Mexico City and I wouldn't be surprised if Tokyo gets one in 15 years.

American football is more popular in Germany than the UK. Germany should be considered too.

The NFL Europe a flop? After they moved all the teams to Central Europe, 5 in Germany and 1 in the Netherlands, they broke even one year and were in the black the year the NFL pulled the plug. London, Barcellona and Glasgow could only get 2-3K fans per game. After reorganization, Frankfurt, Gelsenkirchen, Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg and Amsterdam averaged 20K per game. I watched the Frankfurt Galaxy and Rhein Fire play in Frankfurt one time and there were 39,000 fans at the game. It could have made money, the German fan base was just solidifying, games were shown on TV, then the NFL pulls the plug and replaces it with a game a year in ...........London???? They really alienated a lot of their German fans. What is it with the American infatuation with all things British? They will never embrace the NFL, they love soccer and rugby too much. They will never embrace baseball, they love their cricket too much. On the other hand, central Europeans do not play either sport and only have soccer.

It's just like when they played English Premier League matches over here. Yes, the stadiums filled up and it was a grand old time, but does anyone really think a Premier League teams would survive over here long-term? I would love to see cricket and rugby union get exposure over here (get rid of Nascar and golf) but there is just not a big enough market for those things.Posted by Mike-J-D

I would love to get rid of golf and NASCAR - two useless pastimes that are foisted onto the American public as "sports". But, your point brings up a question - I think you are right in that we wouldn't have a big enough market for cricket or rugby. How are we able to generate a market for NASCAR and golf? They seem very much like a niche to me yet apparently the ratings are great - or at least good enough to keep putting them on TV when real sports aren't being played.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who feels this way. How can the "National Football League" continue to call itself that with a team in London...or Mexico City? This is our game...for our fans. Let the Euro's have their soccer. The upcoming Pats' game in London against Tampa Bay is charged as a Tampa "home" game. But suppose it was the other other way around...and it was scheduled as a Patriots' "home" game. How would season ticket holders feel about that? Wouldn't they demand a discount due to the one less game? Is it fair to that NFL team that they have one less home game? How 'bout the obvious travel problems, should London get a team? The London Fog, or whatever they choose to call themselves, would have a brutal travel schedule, even if all their road games were played on the East Coast. What division would they end up in? Likely the AFC East...with Miami perhaps moving to the AFC South (to make travel less burdensome on London and Miami franchises). What about the draft? Players selected by London would basically be forced to move from the US to England...or maintain two homes. Are there any potential constitutional issues there? What player would want to play for London? How many NFL fans would be thrilled at the prospect of the SB being played in England? If Europe wants football...let them start the EFL (European Football League). Yes...theres' money to be made in Europe. But overexpansion has damaged both the NBA and NHL. Is it worth it for the NFL to risk alienating longtime fans to chase a buck? If American fans due to overexpansion start to develop an "I could care less" attitude, the NFL will lose far more than it gains by entering the European market. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/23/london-hopes-for-four-games-per-year-by-2012/ Thoughts?Posted by TexasPat3

Your not alone at all I'm sure. Especially if we are talking about expansion to create these teams. There are already at least a half dozen teams in the NFL that you expect to lose everytime they take the field and another half dozen or so that aren't worth the price of admission. They have an awesome product right now and I say leave it that way.

then they should start a world league,and leave the american sport[NFL] to us.Posted by mosseffect43

the level of competition would never be at a major league level, as we've seen in the past. even the europeans aren't stupid, they want top level competition. would we want a world league competting for the super bowl?

it'd be like the Japanese basebal league thinking they should have a crack at the World Series.

i'm against existing teams going to London or Toronto, but have no problem with expansion

what other US city right now beside LA can support or will support a team?

the only place left are ridden with college programs that would probably outdraw the NFL, i.e oklahoma and alabama

Canada, England, mexico and japan are our biggest allies, why not let then in the club

In Response to Re: Don't Want London in the NFL : I would love to get rid of golf and NASCAR - two useless pastimes that are foisted onto the American public as "sports". But, your point brings up a question - I think you are right in that we wouldn't have a big enough market for cricket or rugby. How are we able to generate a market for NASCAR and golf? They seem very much like a niche to me yet apparently the ratings are great - or at least good enough to keep putting them on TV when real sports aren't being played.Posted by EnochRoot

I was totally with you till you brought up golf...dang. Golf may not be the NBA or NFL, but it's definitely harder than archery or curling, both of which are in the Olympics!

The NFL is a product run by mostly savvy businessmen who know that to continue to grow revenue, they need to globalize. This is definitely not about selling Brady jerseys in the Cotswolds. That revenue is a drop in the bucket. This is about TV, which as we all know, makes the world go round...

In Response to Don't Want London in the NFL : You have a clear record of being agianst anything that is not in your comfort zone so I wouldn't expect anything else.

RESPONSE: Oh really? Would you care to enlighten me as to examples of my "clear record" of being against anything in my comfort zone? How in the world would you know what my "comfort zone" is? Are you peaking in my bedroom window again, dude?

In terms of constitutional issue you can always play in the UFL if you don't like it.

RESPONSE: This response shows your ignorance. Why should a player be forced to play aboard? Toronto is one thing, but London? How would you feel if your boss told you that, if you wanted to stay with the company for which you worked, you had to work in London?

In terms of logistics I think you could do it, Seatle travels a crapload I don't see how this would be much different.

RESPONSE: So...you don't see the difference between traveling from Seattle...in which at least 4 games are reaonably close, distance wise...from London? LOL!!

RESPONSE: If you take your above statement literally, you're right. But, football is the #1 sport in America. American fans have made it so. Why would you, or anyone else, be in favor of adding a European team...which would lead to some of our best athletes (entertainers) being exported to Europe? Who in the States would care if the day came where London plays Mexico City in the SB? If the Europeans want football...fine. Let them start their own league. When their league approaches parity with the NFL, perhaps then it would be time for a football World Championship game to take place.

2. Season ticket holders can opt out of the ticket or they can purchase the ticket as part of their regular package (a huge ticket to be sure - it doesn't matter what teams are in the game, there is a list of fans that would fill up several games in London per season.) or they can purchase separate packages from the team that include airfare and hotel.

RESPONSE: Just another way of hampering the "average Joe" from seeing games live...and making going to the games affordable for only corporations or the rich.

3. I agree about expansion - it would dilute the product. It is the same reason I am against an 18 game season.

RESPONSE: An 18 game schedule has more to do with increasing the chance of player injuries, and shortening careers, than diluting the product. It is diluting the product in the sense that it would decrease the importance of each regular season game. It is this that puts the NFL head and shoulders over the other major sports in America.

4. Seriously, Constitutional issues. You aren't forcing anyone to play the game. You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of players actually already maintain two homes - one where the team is and one where they might prefer to live with their family.

RESPONSE: Don't you agree that by forcing a player to play football in London, that you're creating somewhat of a hardship for him? What if the player doesn't want to play abroad? Are his choices then reduced to not playing in the NFL, playing in an inferior league for inferior pay, or take up selling insurance? What players would prefer, or want to play there? Until advances allow a player to be safely "beamed", as in "Star Trek", from place to place...an argument can be made that a player is being made to endure a severe hardship by being forced to play in London...which severely hampers him from earning a living in his chosen profession.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who feels this way. How can the "National Football League" continue to call itself that with a team in London...or Mexico City? This is our game...for our fans. Let the Euro's have their soccer. The upcoming Pats' game in London against Tampa Bay is charged as a Tampa "home" game. But suppose it was the other other way around...and it was scheduled as a Patriots' "home" game. How would season ticket holders feel about that? Wouldn't they demand a discount due to the one less game? Is it fair to that NFL team that they have one less home game? How 'bout the obvious travel problems, should London get a team? The London Fog, or whatever they choose to call themselves, would have a brutal travel schedule, even if all their road games were played on the East Coast. What division would they end up in? Likely the AFC East...with Miami perhaps moving to the AFC South (to make travel less burdensome on London and Miami franchises). What about the draft? Players selected by London would basically be forced to move from the US to England...or maintain two homes. Are there any potential constitutional issues there? What player would want to play for London? How many NFL fans would be thrilled at the prospect of the SB being played in England? If Europe wants football...let them start the EFL (European Football League). Yes...theres' money to be made in Europe. But overexpansion has damaged both the NBA and NHL. Is it worth it for the NFL to risk alienating longtime fans to chase a buck? If American fans due to overexpansion start to develop an "I could care less" attitude, the NFL will lose far more than it gains by entering the European market. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/23/london-hopes-for-four-games-per-year-by-2012/ Thoughts?Posted by TexasPat3

As someone who's played football at a very high level. It's a physical game and most fans don't understand what it's like in a huddle. It doesn't matter where you play.

You have been against anything new the NFL tries for example the NFL in London or something as simple and benine as wearing a little pink for breast cancer.

You are the ignorant one if you really think there are constitutional issues here. It is not a right to play in the NFL, you have to earn the honor of playing in the NFL. There is the Arena League and United Football League to shop your wares. There is the workforce like most people who play college football go into. If my company was moving my job to London, they would probably lay me off (that is how the real world works) but if they did keep around I would either go or find a new job.

Seattle has to travel over two hour in the air to get to either Phoenix or San Francisco but they also need to travel out to St. Louis just to finish there divisional play. Now factor in that they play one team in the NFC North, South, and East plus one rotating division from the AFC. They make plenty of 5 hour flight especially every 4 years when they play the AFC East.

In Response to Re: Don't Want London in the NFL : You have been against anything new the NFL tries for example the NFL in London or something as simple and benine as wearing a little pink for breast cancer. You are the ignorant one if you really think there are constitutional issues here. It is not a right to play in the NFL, you have to earn the honor of playing in the NFL. There is the Arena League and United Football League to shop your wares. There is the workforce like most people who play college football go into. If my company was moving my job to London, they would probably lay me off (that is how the real world works) but if they did keep around I would either go or find a new job. Seattle has to travel over two hour in the air to get to either Phoenix or San Francisco but they also need to travel out to St. Louis just to finish there divisional play. Now factor in that they play one team in the NFC North, South, and East plus one rotating division from the AFC. They make plenty of 5 hour flight especially every 4 years when they play the AFC East.Posted by BosoxJoe5

RESPONSE: If you take your above statement literally, you're right. But, football is the #1 sport in America. American fans have made it so. Why would you, or anyone else, be in favor of adding a European team...which would lead to some of our best athletes (entertainers) being exported to Europe? Who in the States would care if the day came where London plays Mexico City in the SB? If the Europeans want football...fine. Let them start their own league. When their league approaches parity with the NFL, perhaps then it would be time for a football World Championship game to take place.

Well, regardless of how you take it, it is right.

My bigger concern though is why you seem to think that disagreeing with the statement that the sport is “ours” means that I want an expansion team in Europe. Not only do the thoughts have no connection, but I have clearly written a few times that I don’t want expansion whether it be a new team in the US, a new team in Europe or an expanded schedule. I am not sure why you think I do.

2. Season ticket holders can opt out of the ticket or they can purchase the ticket as part of their regular package (a huge ticket to be sure - it doesn't matter what teams are in the game, there is a list of fans that would fill up several games in London per season.) or they can purchase separate packages from the team that include airfare and hotel.

RESPONSE: Just another way of hampering the "average Joe" from seeing games live...and making going to the games affordable for only corporations or the rich.

Your original point was the the season ticket owners got screwed by having to pay extra for a ticket they couldn’t use. Now, when it was shown you were wrong, you decide to make it a “stiff the little guy” argument. So, at first you are defending the rights of all season ticket holders and now you have tried to shift your point to defend “the average Joe”. You can’t have it both ways. Just acknowledge you were incorrect on the point and move on instead of throwing out a new weak complaint.

3. I agree about expansion - it would dilute the product. It is the same reason I am against an 18 game season.

RESPONSE: An 18 game schedule has more to do with increasing the chance of player injuries, and shortening careers, than diluting the product. It is diluting the product in the sense that it would decrease the importance of each regular season game. It is this that puts the NFL head and shoulders over the other major sports in America.

Well, that is great considering you took what I already wrote about the increase in player injuries. Glad to see you approve of what I am writing enough to pretend I didn’t and then write it yourself.

But, to dilution of the product - it is the end result of a natural roster increase that will be needed to ensure enough players for all 18 games. The extra games will result in extra injuries and more players will be needed. So now you have players being brought in who wouldn’t make the 53 man roster and players also being brought in to compensate for the increase in injuries - a double whammy against the talent pool. There are 32 starting QBs in the NFL today - how many of them should actually be starting in the NFL? There isn’t enough talent at this point to sustain a 53-man roster for 32 tams. Extra games will bring in players that shouldn’t be in the NFL diluting the talent pool and consequently the product.

But, do you find it funny that in your first response you indicate I am for expansion while here, when you quote me, I am clearly against it? I do. That is a big fail for you.

4. Seriously, Constitutional issues. You aren't forcing anyone to play the game. You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of players actually already maintain two homes - one where the team is and one where they might prefer to live with their family.

RESPONSE: Don't you agree that by forcing a player to play football in London, that you're creating somewhat of a hardship for him? What if the player doesn't want to play abroad? Are his choices then reduced to not playing in the NFL, playing in an inferior league for inferior pay, or take up selling insurance? What players would prefer, or want to play there? Until advances allow a player to be safely "beamed", as in "Star Trek", from place to place...an argument can be made that a player is being made to endure a severe hardship by being forced to play in London...which severely hampers him from earning a living in his chosen profession.

That is a sadly loaded question that assumes the players are being forced. As noted earlier, no one is being forced to do anything. You are wrong in assuming that it is true.

I also wonder if you are so against this “forced team membership” of the players that you aren’t out picketing the draft. You seem to think that it is a hardship on players who don’t want to play in London, but you fail to realize that each year, players are “forced” onto teams they don’t necessarily want to be on. Yet, for some reason, they go.

In Response to Re: Don't Want London in the NFL : the level of competition would never be at a major league level, as we've seen in the past. even the europeans aren't stupid, they want top level competition. would we want a world league competting for the super bowl? it'd be like the Japanese basebal league thinking they should have a crack at the World Series. i'm against existing teams going to London or Toronto, but have no problem with expansion what other US city right now beside LA can support or will support a team? the only place left are ridden with college programs that would probably outdraw the NFL, i.e oklahoma and alabama Canada, England, mexico and japan are our biggest allies, why not let then in the clubPosted by kansaspatriot

LA has proven time and time against that they can't support an NFL franchise. They have the population and the market. They just don't have the fans.

I understand the NFL wanting to have a team there because of the market, but honestly, how many times do they need to see that a team won't be sustained there. If they actually do create an LA franchise and then try to expand to Europe, I bet the first franchise to go European is LA.

Ok- to payingfan, you are really anti Kraft, this is like the third of fourth thing you have said about him. I dont get it. Cheap, he is not. I for one, really appreciate that he has developed into a hands off, thoughtful, NON Jerry Jones type of owner who lets the people he hired to run the team do it. I'm also sure he is smart enough to charge what he can, without losing all the paying customers or running the team into bankruptcy. As for London, I am one hundred percent opposed to overseas expansion until we have a team settled in Los Angeles, some type of solution in Buffalo, and at least 2 teams in other cities. All in all, I would like to see the Jags move to LA and leave the rest of it alone, get a good labor contract, and stop all this London silliness. If the english want to see football, make sure the BBC gets all the game feeds. Lets get rookie caps, team caps, player pay differential, retirement, and new stadium construction issues solver HERE before we talk about expanding there. I am more in favor of them (europeans) setting up their own league than us doing it. Like the CFL, we would see some benefit, but they could tailor it to their own sensiblities, not ours.

Are there any potential constitutional issues there? What player would want to play for London? Posted by TexasPat3

No constitutional issues. Players, like everyone else in our great country, are free to enter into whatever personal services contracts they like, for any legal purpose, to be performed anywhere on Earth that they're willing to work.

However, I agree that its a bad idea. First off, what, the NFL's not making enough money? Also, your point about diluting the product is right on, Texas. If the NFL was to add franchises, shouldn't the us loyal US fans deserve the first shot at them? I'm sure there's a couple of US cities that would love an NFL franchise, one being right here in Los Angeles.

On Inside the NFL they were saying its going to happen for sure, within 5-10 years. They also said it would be 2 teams not 1. That way the NFL could send over two teams at a time for each road trip and keep them over there 2 weeks at a time. I guess if you're going to do it, two teams would be more effective logistically.

In Response to Re: Don't Want London in the NFL : LA has proven time and time against that they can't support an NFL franchise. They have the population and the market. They just don't have the fans. I understand the NFL wanting to have a team there because of the market, but honestly, how many times do they need to see that a team won't be sustained there. If they actually do create an LA franchise and then try to expand to Europe, I bet the first franchise to go European is LA.Posted by EnochRoot

false. The only thing that's been proven is that al davis mistakenly thought he could make more money in Oakland.

There's more people in LA county alone than in the 5 New England states combined. Combined with Orange and several other counties within 50 miles of LA, there's at least two, maybe three times NE's population as a fan base. Oakland, SF and San Diego are foriegn entities to people in this part of CA.

Millions out here would love to see the Rams return or at least a chance at another NFL team.